There’s Nothing Radical about Nullification

Picture the single most barbaric, inhumane, and morally reprehensible act imaginable. It could be anything. You could choose genocide, the most depraved form of torture, or slavery, whatever really. History is replete with examples, the twentieth century in particular, but the nineteenth century had its share of them as well.

There doesn’t have to be a geographic limitation, either. But for the sake of argument, try to keep it local, as in here in the United States. Whatever you chose, On the official Maddow Blog, MSNBC’s Steve Benen believes that “[n]ullification must never be on the table” as a means to protect innocent lives and property.

Apparently he can’t think of a single reason that nullification should be used by states or local governing bodies. The logical implication is that opponents of slavery – that is advocates of freedom – in the antebellum period were wrong to have used nullification as a means to protect the lives and freedom of former slaves. No doubt, Harriet Tubman would be described by Benen as a radical, and her willful defiance of federal slave laws would be denounced, had the two been contemporaries.

Another case where nullification could arguably have been employed is in preventing or at least deterring the murderous and detestable “Trail of Tears” death march across the southern United States. Imagine if the forcible relocation of more than a hundred thousand members of various native tribes weren’t marched through Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, or Kentucky because those states refused to participate. The lives of thousands could have been saved by such resistance. Opponents of nullification however, are self-righteously indignant at such a thought.

In the same way, the disgusting treatment of individuals in certain ethnic groups under Franklin Roosevelt would be tolerable as well. Had the state legislatures refused to cooperate with federal troops who rounded up Americans and placed them in concentration camps, Benen surely would have condemned them, as well.

Rosa Parks, too, falls into this camp of saying “no.” Her act of nullification cannot be reconciled with Benen’s view of government power, and thus it must be concluded that Benen is squarely in favor of Jim Crow laws.

Am I putting words in his mouth? No. I’m merely taking his statement to the logical extreme, demonstrating through reductio ad absurdum that his thesis – and that of anyone firmly opposed to nullification – is morally bankrupt. There can be no other conclusion.

Had he (and others who hold such allegiance to absolute central power) merely argued that nullifying gun legislation, or the Affordable Care Act, or certain environmental protection laws are wrong on partisan grounds, it would be different. Such an argument would reveal an intellectual bankruptcy, and expose what a hack he is, but that’s nothing surprising. But suggesting there is absolutely no reason to ever put nullification on the table is altogether different.

Benen expresses his “sincere hope that this is just a bizarre fad among radicalized Republicans” which “will soon fade without incident.” Unfortunately for him, it’s not a bizarre fad, nor is it exclusive to Republicans, and it’s not even radical.

By definition, a fad is short-lived. Another element common to fads is they’re often limited in scope. Nullification doesn’t fit either of these cases. It’s practically everywhere, actually. As a tool against federal usurpation it has been ongoing since 1996, when California voters approved Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act. As of now, one third of the states have nullified the Controlled Substance Act and allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes. I challenge anyone to prove that nullification of the drug laws at the individual level isn’t pervasive in the remaining states.

Suggesting that nullification is really just a means for embittered Republicans to exact revenge on Democrats is absurd, when looking at the whole picture.

Just examine California’s Proposition 215 again. It came from California, that’s strike one for Republicans, the only exception to this rule is Ronald Reagan. Its roots are in a resolution that was first passed in San Francisco. That’s two strikes. It was then introduced in the state legislature by two Democrats, and then vetoed by a Republican, before eventually ending up on the ballot for voters to determine, which they did by a ten point margin. Do you see where this is going?

There’s also been broad opposition to George W. Bush’s REAL ID Act. In the two dozen states that have refused to adhere to REAL ID, a number are so-called blue states. The fact that Ron Paul is an advocate of decriminalizing pot and rejects REAL ID, and while in politics was routinely mocked by the GOP establishment for doing so, speaks volumes about where Republicans sit on these issues.

It’s clearly not a Republican Party gimmick. That doesn’t mean some die-hard Republicans aren’t going to use it for such purposes. It’s entirely likely that at least some of the support for nullification – from both major parties – has been motivated by partisanship. The same is true for opposition to nullification; it’s no doubt often the result of party loyalty more than anything else. Nor does such a use of nullification render it illegitimate as a political tool.

And finally, it’s not radical at all. It’s just the opposite, in fact.

Standing up and saying “no!” when a group of sociopaths tries to commit a crime is not radical at all. Standing by and saying “yes!” is the truly radical act. Just so we’re clear about terms, synonyms for radical are extreme, wild, or violent. Those just as easily describe the act of corralling human beings into stables like livestock and interring them indefinitely in prison camps. There’s nothing moderate, tame, or passive about declaring certain people to be sub-human and without rights, placing them in chains, and forcing them to return to labor as beasts of burden. And what other way is there to describe the act of marching men, women and children 2,200 miles at gun point into foreign land?

Suggesting these are something else is anti-social, anti-progress, and antithetical to human freedom.

Benen’s prediction in the conclusion of his piece is that nullification advocates will be “left to become a punch-line among future historians marveling at the far-right hysteria of the Obama era.” This type of thinking is as myopic as it is forgetful of the past. Just as advocates of slavery and persecuting certain Americans have proven to be on the “wrong side” of history, so too will opponents of nullification. There seems to be a common thread throughout human events, which is the side in favor of personal freedom being viewed most favorably in hindsight.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Despite the modern’s state’s best efforts to overturn some of its provisions, the Magna Carta is still hailed as a great achievement that helped liberate oppressed peoples. While its motives and ultimate effectiveness are dubious at best, the Emancipation Proclamation is one of the most celebrated documents in America. The same is true for the Declaration of Independence. Note that the theme of each of these is the opposite of what opponents of nullification are suggesting – that freedom and decentralization are without value, and should be crushed.

When history is written of this era we’ll see which side ends up in the punch-line and which is telling the joke. I don’t have the ability to predict the future, but if the past is any indication, freedom will be the winner, and it will have won via nullification.

Comment navigation

Those who are opposed to nullification are opposed to the very foundation of our nation. Through our revolution we nullified British rule. Why, our Jury system itself was meant to nullify an over zealous government. Those who are opposed to nullification were against the Nuremberg Trials, which found that the excuse that “I was just following orders,” did not suffice: for those who knew those orders were wrong should have nullified them, by not carrying them out. So today, I suspect if a police officer, or in our present case, a soldier, is told by a superior officer to shoot American children, or fire a missile from a drone into an American’s home; we should expect him to do so without question. We should expect that Judges that lie to Juries about their duties and their rights to not only judge the case but to judge the law; should get away with aiding in the conviction of citizens that their fellow citizens would never convict on their own. Finally, we should say that in a nation where no longer the majority votes, where no longer elections or the national campaigns that orchestrate them can even be considered fare or remotely without fraud; that the citizens to which this nation belongs have no right to rise up and free themselves. I think not.

The arrogance of the demented is building. One can only hope that we still have a majority of rational citizens who will reach a tipping point and bring this slide into oblivion to a halt. We must remember that we have responsibilities to act. It ain’t gonna happen if we don’t!

The American Revolution certainly was a nullification of governmental treachery! We are, of course, up to our necks in treachery from numerous fronts – with “government” leading the way. We were warned to be on guard for this by very mmany of our fopunders. The more I read and learn about those men the more I marvel at their wisdom and counsel. If only we had been so wise as to remain vigilant and corrective through so many decades. Now we’re up against it. We read that many of us (along with legions of our active military and veterans) say we will defend the greater values of our Constitution. Will we?

Personally I don’t think it goes far enough since for some reason it only contributes to the governing. The decision is a soul statement to self the agreement is its growth as well its mark. To nulli or to “none” some idea is to decide against its authenticity as well source of and can only be done individually and then grow through its act of agreement, this means it starts at home in your own mirror.

Laws as written simply create crime, trash the writings and the agreements to these and all the sudden crime will cease to exist. We are so stuck on the old ways we have yet to create new and persist on this idea some authority must exist.

Well NONE of it is viable by its own results and the thousands of years it has been implemented. Rules or the Rulers with always authorize themselves above what ever it is they write and this has been consistent in all cases.

Nullify this concept of authorization, convincing others they are THE authority makes no sense and Authority in all cases has shown to be the “Radical” ideology.

In history which system is it that worked and has proved itself without question or corruption?

All change is only possible through the act of agreement, the larger the agreement the more impact it holds. This means you better know why you are deciding and agreeing to these terms. Right now on this planet is OPPT-IN this agreement or this decision to self is to end authority in its footsteps and WE are its deciders, its growth, its act of nullifying ancient old systems of false information as well its consistent failures. Only YOU are its answer to relive yourself of old practices that have produced not one viable option that is consistent through eons of time.

Life is everywhere you are on this planet, get used to it and do the right thing and nullify this crap we swim in.

@TaskForce16
Very correct but WE did have great assistance to throw us into the wind. The difference now is the lesson is being fully revealed and you are correct it has everything to do with numbers and the agreement we decide on. Self Governing starts at home and does not go to others for permissions for there is only one authority in your life, you.

Old habits die hard because the creators of habits forget who created them and each one of us holds them in place.

Agreeing to nullification is not by permission, it is an action item within, collectively this does become a force to be reckoned with.

“Apparently he can’t think of a single reason that nullification should be used by states or local governing bodies.”

Herein lies the problem, they don’t think, or they can’t think. They are TOLD what to think instead of doing it for themselves. Some of these talking heads and politicians have probably never had and original thought in their entire lives.

TO HELL WITH “COMRADE LICK-MUNCH” MADDOW !!! WHO THE HELL IS SHE ? NOTHING BUT ANOTHER LEFTARD TALKING HEAD WITH DIAHRREA OF THE MOUTH. ABOUT THE SAME THING COMES OUT OF HER MOUTH EVERY TIME SHE OPENS IT, AS WHAT COMES OUT WITH THE HERSHEY SQUIRTS. MADDOW, MATTHEWS, OLBERMAN (THANK GOD HE’S GONE !!! FOR NOW…), DOESN’T MATTER….IT’S THE SAME OL’ PROPAGANDA MINISTRY BULL$#!T OVER & OVER. WHEN WILL LIBERALISM BE EXPOSED FOR THE MENTAL ILLNESS IT IS & THESE IDIOTS BE PUT IN RUBBER ROOMS ??? I CAN’T STAND IT MUCH LONGER……………….

“Radical Republicans” were that faction of the republican party that advocated the emancipation of slaves, and full voting rights for them after it was achieved. “Moderates” like Lincoln were slow to come around. We should not be afraid of that honorable title.

I don’t know if its just me or what but I went to her Facebook page and the steady line of pure hate speech is so obvious. I even commented on a subject once and after that I was hacked and post were put out on how much of an ” a hole” I was and how some wished that me and my son DIE just to spare him disappointment in me in his future. I was beside myself in shock. That. Cemented my undying dislike of all things liberal and horn rimmed glasses forever.

When it comes to dealing with the government and particularly the present administration,my favorite thought comes from Larry Gatlin of the Gatlin brothers. He said” “You take your dog to a Veterinarian who also happens to be a Taxidermist ,no matter whether your dog gets better or not you will get your dog back” Gotta love the logic in that .

They each have their own little “pedestal” they carry with them.And each day it continue’s to grow!! Can’t wait to see their faces when WE THE PEOPLE begin to kick those pedestals out from under each one!! And we will!!

It’s a funny world when common sense is called radical. But why fight them on it? I am proud to be a radical, a conspiracy theorist, and an American patriot against the criminals who have taken over our government and stolen America from us. And I’m also a jihadist because that does not mean to be a terrorist, does not mean to be violent, but does mean to fight corruption, injustice, and tyranny by any means necessary within the boundaries and rules of conduct decreed by God in the holy books. Pre-emptive strikes are not allowed, but self defense is and so are all forms of non-violent protest and opposition.

What if, eye am a Spiritual Being, an extension of Prime Creator, beyond Infinity????? The power to Kill, by Defense or Offense, determines our next Dimension of our Spiritual Being, Higher Consciousness?????

I had hope for Maddow… BEFORE Obama took office. She attacked the bastard Bush II for many of the right reasons. She just forgot about those “principles” as soon as Obama got power. Funny how that works…

Put that in your pipe and Smoke it, before you go Kill again, Defending Me on my land 2,000 miles away, while the Banksters steal my Liberty, Income and Land by increased Taxation without Representation….. Spiritual Choice????? Wake UP…..